Add new comment

The new equipment at the Peter Brothers pit

Update 15 Nov 2015:

This seems to be a recurring problem. From time to time Peter Bros. needs additional capacity for paving and brings in a second mobile asphalt plant.  Last year when Peter Bros. was paving the airport runways in the middle of the night they struck a deal with the PIB to locate the second plant in the south west corner of the Westhills Aggregates pit.  This was a slightly improved situation for Area F residents because the smoke and noise were farther away from houses. 

As noted below, all the RDOS can do when faced with violations of its land use bylaws is issue a violation ticket (currently $500).  That Peter Bros. pays these tickets without flinching suggests to me that (a) they don't have many other alternatives for locating this plant and (b) they regard the fines as a cost of doing business.  My hope after last year was that Peter Bros. would strike a semi-permanent deal with the PIB to locate the second plant in the Westhills pit.  After all, RDOS land use bylaws and fines do not apply on PIB land.   I am not sure why they did not strike such a deal this time around.  Perhaps this is a shorter duration job.


Update 19 April, 2011: We have reports that a second plant is back and that the levels of fumes and dust are very high.  This is an illegal non-conforming use and I have been advised by RDOS staff that the RDOS will be issuing a ticket.

Update 02 May, 2011: Three issues here: First, many of the complaints are about dust and noise from gravel crushing, which is permitted (recall: the gravel pits predate residential development above the West Bench and have the right to operate).  Peter Brothers advises us that the winter gravel crush does not last that long.  Second, the law regarding "legal non-conforming" uses (see below) is not clear when it comes to industrial equipment.  Is an asphalt plant a building or a piece of machinery?  If it is a piece of machinery, then land-use bylaws do not really apply.  We have to ask whether it is worthwhile to attempt to resolve this question in court given that court costs are charged back to Area 'F' taxpayers.  Finally, we have been advised by Peter Brothers that the new asphalt plant is required for a Summerland paving job and is thus short-term.  That is, the problem will go away in a week or so and we will be back to "normal" (which is not ideal either).

We are working with Peter Brothers to encourage a more transparent approach to what seems to be a annual issue.


Update 7 May, 2010: The portable asphalt plant has been packed up (and paving has been completed on the Channel Parkway).


As some may have noticed, a new asphalt plant has been located recently in the Peter Brothers Paving pit off Bartlett Drive.

What follows is the response from RDOS staff:

I advised [Inland Contracting/Peter Bros.] that this site is zoned for residential use and is "legal non-conforming". The existing asphalt plant may continue operating indefinitely, but that the operation cannot be expanded. Inland Contracting advised that a new asphalt plant has recently been moved onto the site, that it is a temporary situation for paving of the Channel Parkway and will be operating from 9 -3 for about 1 week, after which the plant will be moved. They have obtained relocation permits from MoE and have lower emissions than the standards. I advised that the new plant was not authorized and that a letter would be sent so advising (noting that the plant would likely be gone before we are able to take action). I also suggested that they may wish to advise their neighbours of the temporary nature of the new plant, as these types of uses are very contentious.


Plain text

  • No HTML tags allowed.
  • Web page addresses and e-mail addresses turn into links automatically.
  • Lines and paragraphs break automatically.
This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions. Registered users of this site do not have to do this.